I'm always a little surprised to get lassoed back into this topic, because I can barely recall posting a response, perhaps because it was more of a late night drive-by shooting than a considered observation, the very sort of vocalized gut reaction that I've said elsewhere that I don't favor. Mea maxima culpa.

I think that my initial impulse went not to the technical aspects, really, but to the impression I had of the seeming disrespect for the portrait subject (Queen or not). To me, it's an honor to be allowed to paint someone's portrait, and I feel obliged to at the very least "do no harm".

That being said, there probably isn't a person in the world with any familiarity with the Queen who wouldn't see this portrait and say, yep, that's the Queen. We should all be so successful in universal recognition of a likeness we've worked to capture, much less in an unorthodox rendering. The artist clearly pinned down something most essential about the subject -- not the "something" that we're accustomed to seeing in the typical publicity releases, but something we nonetheless can't deny recognizing. Not bad.

And if it took 6 years of negotiations, the arbiters of royal taste must have had a pretty good idea of what they were getting into, and they agreed, so perhaps no offense was taken. But 70 sittings? For a 6x9 painting? Methinks Lucky and Her Maj must have had more than a mutual appreciation for tea and crumpets. Something's just not on, Mum. Better have the maid inventory the flatware.

Here's what I suspect Freud thinks of all of this: nothing. Couldn't care less, if he's even aware of it, which I doubt. Wouldn't it be great to have that kind of freedom as an artist, whatever one's style and approach? I can't imagine Sigmund's grandson lying on a couch somewhere, wringing his hands and tearfully trying to choke out a response to a therapist's prompt, "And how does all that criticism make you feel? Angry? Sad?"

Off the wall and out of the ordinary is a nice whack on the side of the head sometimes. I just took my alto sax-playing son to a performance by a saxophone quartet that, among other things, played one piece entirely a 1/16 off the beat (each player choosing one side or the other), and another selection was rendered with saxophones tipped back so that the players' saliva remained in the mouthpiece, resulting in gurgling bubble notes. It was brilliant (though I wouldn't want the CD). And I'll tell you what, you have to be incredibly good to be that "bad". I'm sure there wasn't a single person in the audience who wasn't completely caught up in it -- some caught more reluctantly than others -- all the way through standing ovations and the third encore.

On a similar note, if you ever wanted to develop an appreciation for bassoon, it's hard to go wrong with a recording from the Bubonic Bassoon Quartet. I have a hunch that Freud played that tape a few times while he painted this gurgling royal bubble.

Room for all,
Steven

Oh Karin...

When I view this piece without the politics, that is without knowing who it is or who painted it, I give it a more favorable judgement. To see it randomly on a wall I think it would make me stop and hold my interest. Would I have the nerve to present it to the Queen? I think not.

I've always wondered where Freuds' career would be were he born Louie Fred.

Remember at one point the Beatles became aware of the fame of their name moving their music onward? So, they wrote some songs which were released by other artists. These songs were hits too.

I'll bet ole Lucian really wonders about this too. He could enter lots of competitions under pen names and show us all, or could he?

I find the contrast between the way Freud painted the her face and the crown both interesting and disconcerting. The face has an awkward paint by number quality to it while the crown has an almost photo-realism to it. It's as if he's saying the the crown is real, but she's not. (Karin, et al, if I'm indulging in artspeak, please excuse, but I couldn't resist!)

While I concede that Freud's self-portrait is a little scary looking, I actually like it. He captured what I presume to be his own intense energy and made me pause to acknowledge it. I admire that capacity.

One more thing about the Queen's portrait...what's up with the 5:00 shadow?

-Margaret

Egad, what was Lucian really saying here! A 5 O'clock shadow on the Queen? Perhaps this "Freudian slip" reveals some deeply held royal secret...:cool:

Hello all,

My admittedly uneducated opinion:

If it takes 5 pages of discussion to devine the "meaning" of a painting (esepecially such a simple one) then the artist has failed to communicate, not to mention uglifying the sitter(sure....it's a word).

I noticed that nearly everyone had a negative reaction to it at first (i.e. it is aesthetically unappealing). After we saw his self-portrait (which I thought was interesting, but not that great) then we started guessing at what he could be "saying" by creating such work, and the amateurish, ugly nature of the painting seemed less important.

In my view, if you're painting a portrait as a gift, aesthetic pleasantness should be a minimal requirement, even if you're not trying to beautify the sitter.

I'm sure you're right that Freud couldn't care any less. As with a lot of paintings, it's the hype that gets the praise and notoriety, not the work itself (may not be true of all his work, but I think it applies to this one).

Hope I don't seem too judgemental,
Nathan

Nathan,

The five pages may not be the result of "failure to communicate" by the artist as much as the wish by many to beat the messenger when you don't like the message. Which has been one constant in art history. I understand quite a stir took place when artist first dared to mix colors with oil, use dramatic light and darks (Rembrandt), and were rejected by the official art communities when they dabbled in nonsence called "Impressionism".

The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad. -Salvador
Dali, painter (1904-1989)

More than 50 replies
 

Cynthia,
I really think it's time for you to make a new purple envelope icon for over 50 replies and 1500 views. :)

I think if Freud saw how much hubbub we were making about his work he would be as happy as a clam.

Hello all,

Jim:

Yes, I agree with you. There will always be those who fight change in art as in anything else. Some people think that smearing actual feces on the canvas is art....I personally do not. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line at intentional creation of ugliness and/or inciting controversy to sell your work (not necessarily meaning Freud here). None of the changes you you mentioned imply either of those. I think a majority of people who saw this painting for the first time would (and have so far it seems) recognize this painting as ugly...i.e. not aesthetically pleasing. I don't think professional fine art should be created unless it is aesthetically pleasing and/or makes a discernable statement (not a statement you have to research the artist or take other measures to devine). Vision is a sensory experience, why give it something displeasing intentionally?

It's not a 'modern' vs. 'classical' thing.

Sure, it's a subjective opinion, but that's what I don't like about the portrait.

In plain language....it's ugly.

Nathan

While agreeing with the majority opinion (which in younger days would have been reason enough to DISAGREE ;) ) I don't think the words "should be" have a valid place in art critque. (Does one absolute fighting another negate them both?)

I know what you meant Nathaniel, and I suspect your "should be" did NOT in fact mean "must be" (did it?), but that is what is too often meant when people trot out those two iron-plated words ...

David,

You're right. I certainly didn't mean "must be". We're talking about whether or not we like the portrait of Elizabeth and why, so I'm just giving my personal preferences. It's difficult to state these things clearly. I read somewhere that "talking about art is like dancing about mathematics".

Also, I don't consider myself qualified to give an "art critique". You won't see me post anything in the critique forum, but I thought I'd say something here, since we're just being asked what we think of the painting.

Nathan

I feel a little guilty about this but I can't resist knocking Lucian Freud's work...

Here is a drawing by him...and I think the title should be:

"DON'T DRINK AND DRAW!"

OR!

"Don't drink and write humor"

I consider Lucian Freud a good, perhaps one of the best painters of today. Perhaps it's good to think about how intolerant many people are towards realistic art, let's not make the same mistake towards Lucien Freud. The portrait of the queen is not one of his best. I think it's not a good painting by Freud's standards. But he made some impressive works of art.

Thanks Karin, for showing us that beautiful drawing by Freud.

Peter

An old saying, but a true one, isn't it? :) Thanks for another definition of "beautiful."

Wow, I just re-read this thread..........

I work the graveyard shift (11pm-7am) while in school, so I sometimes have to go 24 hours without sleep. It shows in some of my more regrettable posts!


Nathan

I think it is unfair to judge an artist by only one or two works....it is helpful to see a whole body of work. So here is some more of Lucien's work...

and more...

and...

So far...if his work "says" anything to me, it is that he is a nasty, angry man who doesn't much like people.

and...

I wonder what would happen some of these appeared in the "Critique" section?

Freud
 

OK- I've just looked at the whole thread about Freud and offer this without comment of any kind:

I used to be a professional photographer and was fond of saying "If you love or hate my work, I've succeeded. If you are indifferent to it, I've failed."

To each his own, but I think she looks like an old man in drag with a wig on.

Alicia

Hello Alicia,

I think it's interesting to see how much discussion this work has provoked. Powerful things have a way of doing that.

Art isn't always pretty, is it? Have you seen any of Goya's war work or his late murals? I bet his contemporaries weren't too impressed.

Pretty Freud ain't. Literal? No way. But if you think this guy is having us all on, try looking at his etchings or other paintings. Freud is no con-man. He's a master draftsman and technically a brilliant painter. So is it worth asking why he has painted the Queen like this, when he is perfectly capable of making a flattering likeness if he wants to?

The picture is uncomfortable and disturbing. Do you think it was meant to be? This guy isn't cozy- he's confronting. Is there a place for that?

I merely ask....

Are you sure about this? People say this a lot about Picasso, but I doubt that he could have made it as a decent realist either.

Yes, I agree, but I do not understand why anyone would choose to purchase something so unpleasant to look at. Perhaps this just boils down to one's personal philosophy.

I'm going to say that I like it. As an artist we are to depict the image and personality of the subject in the portrait. Therefore, I believe that he has captured a likeness. I understand that the queen is not a particularly pleasant person. Thus, I believe that he has portrayed that image. I like the looseness of the work, very impessionistic.

Dear Peter,

In fifty or one hundred years, will people look back on this portrait as a masterpiece? There are many horrible images in this world to look upon, daily. Does that mean it should be replicated? Does Lucien paint this way to get noticed? Let's face it, we all now know who he is. His work definitely stands out from the ordinary, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

His other works are also disturbing to me. I am no snob but I ask myself, what is he trying to say with his work. Maybe it is "let me show the world the other side of beauty." It is provoking work, but I don't like what it provokes in me when I look at it. There are some who may like to look upon such things, but I think they are in the minority. No doubt he is a good draftsman and painter, but he chooses to use his talent in a disturbing way. Some people like to cause controversity simply to get attention. Well, he got it.

Alicia

Well! I seem to have kicked up a minor storm! I guess I'LL be accused of trying to get attention, now.. That's not my intention- I'm glad to see responses to my slightly provocative comments, though, because it seems to me we're getting at what art can be about.

Alicia- of course you don't have to like it! Neither does anyone, and I'm not saying that I "like" it either. What people will think of it in the future is of course unanswerable from our perspective. It is worth considering that even artists we now consider "masters" often sank into obscurity for centuries. (Vermeer is one.)

I'm not being controversial merely for the sake of it. I struggle with these kinds of issues myself- both in trying to listen to your views and daily in my own work. I guess its a plea for open-mindedness.

No, I don't think Freud is an attention-seeker. There is nothing slick or manipulative in his work, at least that I can see. I agree with Karin about Picasso only to the extent that some of his later works betray a certain cynicism in regard to his "public"- but I sincerely disagree that he was incapable of "realism". The man could draw like an angel at age 10 and a glance at some of his early work should dispel any doubts as to his capabilities.

Yes- of course it's all a question of tastes on one level; and everyone is entitled to respond as they wish. But if every disturbing image is a con because it's uncomfortable, we can wipe out a pretty large segment of the western cultural heritage. Let's start with Shakespearean tragedy, for example.

Hope this isn't too much. I find the whole question fascinating- why do we paint? There are as many reasons as there are artists, I guess. Thanks for the stimulating responses.

Interesting subject. Most people say that Picasso's early work proved that he was a great draughtsman...I've looked, but have not seen any of this "great work" on display anywhere.

Not surprisingly, my personal library is a bit thin in the Picasso section. Can you direct me to someplace (on the internet perhaps?) where I could see some of this legendary early work. When presented with new information, I do (oftentimes) change my mind.

And even though I think Lucien's work is not candy to the eye (eyesore is a more appropriate word), his self-portrait (earlier post) did blow me away with the technical virtuosity of his brush! Wow.

;) Peter,

I'm not saying that every disturbing image is a "con" or that life should be viewed through rose colored glasses either. Shakespeare provoked us to think and feel, to love and to despair. Western civilization does indeed have much to be ashamed of and much to exalt over.

There are images of war and suffering everywhere we turn, we see them and mourn. Sargent painted the gassed soldiers of WWI and many other battlefield pictures. Although they were reality and a grim testament to the time, they were beautifully and most importantly of all, tenderly done. they were not executed for shock value.

Let me put it this way...there are movies and there are movies. This portrait reminds me of the "Texas Chain Saw Massacre". I'd much rather see "Shakespeare In Love."

I paint because I am (and it is an obsession to create).

Cheerfully,
Alicia

My feelings about the work of Lucien Freud...

First... I don't like the portrait of queen Elizabeth. It's terrible, not worthy for the man who could paint the earlier posted self-portrait. I have seen queen Elizabeth on television. She looks cold-hearted but not like she was covered in mud, like Freud painted her.

I don't like his work for the 'ability to provoke'. I like his self-portrait because it's a good painting. Nothing else. If I defend his work it is for the quality of that self-portrait mainly.

His provocative way of doing things, confronting us with uncomfortable poses and compositions are -in the end- annoying to me and show me that Freud believes in the myth of the great and critical artist, and it makes his work worse. It's a kind of mannerism. To me, Freud threw away much of his talent by having this attitude. It may work one or two times, but it becomes a cheap way of doing things in the hands of a too self-concious and very, very succesfull and rich artist. It ends up as a parody or image-building.

Freud is considered a great painter, in this day and age, but his best handling of the paint comes nowhere near the painterly qualities of Rembrandt in his later work. That Freud is considered as one of todays greatest painters shows that there are no really great painters like Velazquez, Vermeer or Rembrandt at this moment.

Greetings,
Peter

Peter:

Yes, I think you make a valid point about the confrontational aspect of Freud's work becoming a mannerism. As I said in a previous post, I'm not claiming that I LIKE everything he's done, in fact "likeable" is not a word that springs to mind about his work! Respect, though, I certainly have. And having looked pretty closely at his large etchings at a recent exhibition, I have to say if my drawings had half the power of his I'd be humbly grateful.

Karin:

I have seen some early Picasso drawings- admittedly in a book not "in the flesh". I'll have a look for them but I can't actually remember where I saw them, so a bit of library searching may be required. As a student, though, I'd have to say, from my experience at least, that teachers and experienced artists seem to differ about what constitutes good drawing! I was very impressed, for instance, by the power of some Picasso prints and drawings I saw here (last year?) which were from his "neo-classical" period (hardly "early" works)- but one of my teachers thought them so-so.

I'm not a Freud worshipper. Just feel that he is due the same respect any artist is due, to try to understand his work, and see critically both its strengths and weaknesses. Whether he is rich and successful is quite irrelevant.

What annoys me in the way Picasso is described is that virtuosity in his way of drawing is seen as a proof of talent (his early works) while other excellent artists from the 19th century era are ridiculed because of it. Just a thought. As a draughtsman he is just another artist who has the classic 19th century skill of academic drawing. Nothing more. A heavily overrated artist in my opinion.

Peter

Peter G,

I have followed your comments and appreciate that there are others who appreciate art more provoking than cute children in the garden with colors coordinated with the new drapes and couch. One of the great rewards of participating in the arts community has been the oportunity to know so many people that are open and accepting and it always surprises me to see how narrow we can sometimes be.

Forgive the quality of these images taken from an old book on drawings that my mother bought for me when I was in high school more than 45 years ago, but here are several drawings by Picasso that demonstrate his ability to draw in the more conventional manner.

And.

Peter!

That, again, is an excellent point about Picasso's draftsmanship. In that sense, as Karin implied (in her diplomatic way!), I've possibly been sucked in by the mythology. It's quite true that many "academic" Victorians have been derided for being "slick" because they were highly skilled. Both sides of the fence in this "realist versus modernist" storm in a teacup are guilty of inconsistency. Me too: mea culpa.

I think what impresses me is "power to move". For instance (shock, horror), a recent exhibition of Soutine paintings moved me deeply. Now I can just imagine what sort of reaction ANYTHING by Soutine would get on this forum!

Of course, he was kind of mad- but then so were a lot of the others. There's something deeply human in a lot of works that would get the thumbs down from most people....Fortunately we each can appreciate whatevever we wish!

Jim!

Thanks so much for posting the drawings. There is another one of Stravinsky (in Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain")which I think is a miracle of economical line drawing. Unfortunately I have no scanner or I'd put it up. Certainly not "realist" in the literal sense- but what confidence and superlative seeing!

Perhaps, in the end, it's a mistake to compare "realism" with "modernism". The artists in each case are aiming at such different things!

I enjoy both and can be critical of both. But it is certainly instructive when we try to replicate what we admire. I find Cezanne just as complex and fascinating as David, Gericault or Turner- (another painter who worked across the divide....)

Thanks Jim, I had never seen these drawings before. Picasso certainly isn't a "realist" but I do rather like these drawings. The second one kind of reminds me of the old "New Yorker" illustration style.

I wonder what Lucien's early work was like? As a person, does anyone know if Lucien is a happy and well-adjusted man? ...Unless, of course, you define "laughing all the way to the bank" as being "happy."